JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging"the order dated 4.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in revision whereby the learned Revisional Court quashed the order dated 6.3.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar whereby cognizance had been taken against the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a certified copy of the judgment dated 7.7.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Case No. 189/1999 whereby the petitioner who was tired in the cross case filed by the respondent Madhu Kakkar and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 353 I.P.C. and has been released on probation. 3. After giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and after going through the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the Revisional Court's order dated 4.11.2000 quashing the order taking cognizance has been passed on substantial and justifiable reasons. The police after thorough investigation of the matter had given a final report. The F.I.R. which was filed by the petitioner in relation to the alleged incident dated 12.4.1999 was highly belated having been filed after nearly five months. The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh (dead) through LR's v. Gurpal Singh, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3624 , observed as below: "21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the F.I.R., the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the F.I.R. does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal, [vide: Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247 : 1997 AIR SCW 3306]. 22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a F.I.R., the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. 22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a F.I.R., the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the Court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court. The Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an F.I.R. is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case, [vide : Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238 ; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 AIR SCW 237 ; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 634 : 2008 AIR SCW 6901 ]". 4. Considering the facts of the instant case and testing them on the touchstone of the observations made by the Apex Curt in the case of Kishan Singh referred supra, it is apparent that in the instant also the petitioner had already been prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302 and 353 I.P.C. The F.I.R. which was filed by the respondent No. 2 was prompt having been filed on 12.5.1999 itself. The respondent has been convicted in the said case. The respondent has been convicted in the said case. The prosecution which was initiated by the complainant petitioner in this case was obviously motivated and launched as a vendetta by the respondent No. 2 who had filed a prompt criminal case against the complaint in relation to the incident which took place on 12.4.1999. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Revisional Court has rightly exercised its powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondent accused.The revision petition being bereft of any force is rejected.Revision dismissed. *******